Keyman wrote:This is sarcasm, right? In Minnesota, we have a large population of Swedes. (Whether they fit in Mikeski's "Puppy Bowl" voting theory, I don't know.) But there are many ways one might 'ineligible to vote'. Assuming Convicted Felons are not 28% of the populace and/or non compos mentis ,we must also be including those not registered to vote....

THIS is sarcasm right? Did you really have that difficult of a time understanding what I was trying to say? How could a large population of Swedes in Minnesota have anything to do with the point I already made?

It might not be a particularly USEFUL chart, but it is what it says it is (assuming the numbers are correct, which I didn't check), a chart of all Americans. And my two preschool kids are Americans who didn't vote in 2016, and probably won't vote for at least a decade!

Leovan wrote:Edit: looked it up. Minors make 24% of the US population and immigrants 13%. Implies immigrants were not included in "How America participated"

That 13% of the total U.S. population is ALL immigrants, most of whom become legalized citizens, and can (and many of whom do) vote.Nobody knows for certain how many illegal immigrants there are, but it's probably close to 3.5 percent.

Why would you still count naturalized citizens as immigrants? But you're right. 48% from that statistic are naturalized citizens, so the ineligible to vote because immigrant group is about 7% of the total population. This includes illegals. Assuming the same 24% minor ratio, it's possible non-naturalized immigrants were included in the ineligible to vote category of the chart. To be honest I'm surprised the US immigrant population is so small...

That's how many people share my imperfect colour vision. When I zoomed the image as far as possible I could finally see that the figures were actually in three different colours, but then I couldn't see the whole picture, or even a decent slice of it. Had you used three well-chosen different symbols, you'd have reached a larger audience.

I've never thought I had a color problem, but the green figures on this map were barely distinguishable from blue for me at first. Lately I have been using a "Blue/Orange Divergent" color map from https://datascience.lanl.gov/colormaps.html . It obviously can't help the truly color blind, but at least it avoids the most common red/green problem. It also has a range of darkness (value) which can be helpful. As I read while choosing that colormap, "red and green should never be seen" (together in a chart).

Soupspoon wrote:Is it possibly intentional (and covered by approximate location within the state, either way, as a get-out) that Michigan UP has no voters marked down?

I assumed that this was a tally of actual votes, not potential voters.If no candidate received 125k+ votes from those precincts (which is likely if the total population is <350k), then there should not be any separate marks on the map.

chridd's post above is probably a better way of doing it, in that the two main parties are visible without having to zoom in, but here's a shapes-based version. Clinton voters lean left, Trump lean right. Best viewed at close to full-size.

I'd like to know that too. I did a search about a month after the election and the opendatasoft data, scraped from the New York Times and available in a few different places and formats, was the best I found. I never did find anything official, and I'm not having much more luck now. The FEC has results by state but not by county or precinct; any more detailed national results I've found are either non-free, or scraped.

I took the 'approximate location within the state' part to mean that attempts to place the mini-voters across the states had to be done, smudgily, by shoving otherwise unknown group-locations into a pattern generally matching a population density hot-spot map. Data pertaining to "this particular settlement of quarter of a million voted all this way/that way" not being available, the marker of a particular type is laid down on a patch of ¼mil people in a stippled way that might indeed be inaccurate to the ground conditions but the inaccuracies happening both ways. The overall 'state of the state' being accurate.

(Also why the UP has no men in it, as I noted. Whether or not there deserve to be one or maybe a few sparse men dotting around this quieter area, somewhere where there is a large enough township or band of rural-level connurnation, if all the little men for the whole state were 'used up' in the other parts by way of rounding-up errors then that space is left devoid of markers. As may be other open areas of other states, though not so obviously so without the obvious geographic separation as well.)

Yup. I've seen the county-by-county maps used to show "look, it's red everywhere(except for some splodges over at the coasts, etc, that just happen to be some of the largest and densest-by-population metropolitan areas, but that doesn't really suit our message that most of the area of the US supported our guy)" and that's probably part of what was used. But with few places having outright all-red or all-blue (or all-other) in convenient quarter-mill lumps, we're back to using an imprecise stippling/dithering method to give an impression, with an obvious departure from reality if you zoomed in on a particular area and tried to match map to on-the-ground Truth.

But that's just me "that's how I would have done it" explanation. TIMTOWTDI.